CHAPTER VIII CHURCH RATES AND UNIVERSITY TESTS Universal By the common law of England every parish was bound to maintain the fabric of the parish church, with the exception of the chancel, the repairs of which fell on the rector; incidence of and this was fair to all, so long as all the King's subchurch jects were members of the Church of England. But rates. it was one of the earliest complaints of Dissenters that they were called upon to contribute for the maintenance of a church which had cast them out; and the grievance grew with the growth of dissent. That the grievance, though real, was not intolerable, may be judged by the fact that in 1811 the 'Protestant Society for the Protection of Religious Liberty' expressly ruled church rates out of the scope of their activity, for the reason that they were not Growth of considered an injustice to Dissenters. But the proto church portion of Dissenters to church people increased, as the large towns increased; and in a like proportion grew the strength of nonconformist hostility. The Dissenters saw no reason why they should pay voluntary contributions for the support of their own chapels, and at the same time be taxed for the repairs of buildings which they never entered, buildings, too, which they looked upon as the outward symbol of ascendency and oppression. The rate was in many cases refused by individuals, who suffered in consequence distraint of goods or imprisonment. It was therefore not merely a sentimental grievance. The objection was twofold; on the score of conscience, that they should be compelled to contribute for the maintenance of what they believed to be a superstitious the dislike rates. CHAP. VIII CHURCH RATES REFUSED 159 form of religion, and of justice, that they should be compelled to pay for that which was of no use to them. The obligation was unjust, and should be removed by statute. The best argument on the other side was that the Church kept open doors and repelled none; that the clergy were willing to minister to all who came to them; that the churches, being the property of all, and used by all for baptisms, marriages, and burials, the maintenance of them might be fairly charged upon all. Church rates refused. As a matter of law, the obligation was admitted, but authorities were not agreed as to how it should be enforced. The Court of King's Bench had on one occasion refused to grant a mandamus for compelling a parish to make a rate for the repair of the parish church, on the ground that action belonged to the ecclesiastical courts. In point of fact, no mandamus would ever be issued for such a purpose. The only remedy provided was an interdict; a remedy which, even if it could be conceived possible, would punish the Churchman by shutting up his church, but not touch the Dissenter. When it was once perceived that the legal obligation could not or would not be enforced, it became clear that the voluntary principle would ultimately be applied to church rates. Quakers might suffer in silence, but the Nonconformists as a body were increasing in number and influence, and were in no peaceful temper. Religious questions are always used in English politics as a stalking-horse for party; and once brought into a ministerial programme, it was not likely that the church rate question would be lost sight of. The equalitarian doctrines of 1832 affected ecclesiastical as well as civil politics during that period of disappointment and disillusion in which it became matter of experience that new laws do not abolish ancient grievances. Reformers who wished to reform everything at once were disappointed at being checked by the inertia of Parliament when Divett's such motions were brought forward as Mr. Divett's proposal, 1834. (18 March 1834) to abolish compulsory church rates in England and Wales. To prove a grievance to the satisfaction of Parliament is a slow process, and it is a slower process still to devise a remedy which Parliament will accept. Mr. Divett, in moving his resolution, spoke of church rates as a tax of 'infamous character,' which produced more than half a million out of nine and a half millions, the amount of general local taxation. He desired the abolition of this tax principally on account of the hostile feeling of the Dissenters, which he believed would be greatly diminished if his measure were passed; there was 'no subject which created more heart-burnings than the compulsory assessment of church rates.' The difficult questions connected with the existence of an established church were not disentangled in the course of the debate, but it was represented that the tax was unjust and inexpedient, both in the interest of Dissenters and Roman Catholics, and on general grounds of religious Althorp's resolution, equality; and also because the working of the law 1834. was unsatisfactory to the Church itself. Lord Althorp had already given notice of a motion on the subject, and on April 21 moved a resolution to terminate church rates altogether after a fixed time, and in their stead to charge a quarter of a million annually upon the land tax, to be expended on the repair of the fabrics. The sum raised by rate was nearly double this, but it was got with great and increasing difficulty; moreover, the money would be administered by the Ecclesiastical Commission, who were to be made a permanent body; and the Commissioners would be likely to make repairs more economically than the local authorities, who were charged with extravagance. It was, however, not self-evident that the Commissioners would administer the fund better than the local authorities, who at least knew what they wanted. Parish churches belong to the parishes, not the State. The weak point in Lord Althorp's argument was that if the principle of paying for the maintenance of churches out of public money were upheld, the Dissenters' grievance, so far as it was one of principle, would not be removed by halving the sum to be paid. Althorp's moderate proposal, though the resolution was carried in Parliament, pleased neither party. The time for moderate proposals had not come; both parties were putting their armour on, and were in no temper to accept compromises; the Dissenters hoped to abolish church rates altogether; the Churchmen thought the grant too small, and the VIII SPRING RICE'S BILL 161 security insufficient, and disliked parliamentary interference with ancient church property. Church rate, they said, was as clearly defined an incident of property as poor rate, or any other established impost, paid indifferently by Churchmen and Dissenters. One man's conscience should not be allowed to interfere with another man's right. The whole amount of the rate did not amount to more than threepence in the pound on the landed rental of the country; and of this threepence the Dissenters did not pay one-quarter of a farthing. But Dissenters did not complain, said Joseph Hume, of having to pay much or having to pay directly; they complained of having to pay at all. It was a question of conscience, not of money. If the bill passed, the Dissenters would not be relieved; they would only have to pay the tax-gatherer instead of the churchwarden. The Government carried the first reading by 256 to 140, but went no further with the measure. On March 3, 1837, Spring Rice, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, moved the consideration of the question of church rates. It appeared, he said, that the opposition Spring Rice's to the rate was increasing, and was so bitter that bill, 1837. in some places, Manchester and Sheffield, for instance, it was impossible to levy it. In 1833 at Manchester there was a majority of one on a poll of 7000; in 1834 11,000 out of 15,000 voted against the rate, and none was levied. A tax on the members of the Establishment was impossible, a tax on ecclesiastical benefices was unfair and unjust. Lord Althorp's proposal to impose an annual tax of a quarter of a million would also fall unequally. Spring Rice's own plan was to take the whole property of the bishops, deans, and chapters out of the hands of those dignitaries, and to vest it in the hands of eleven Commissioners, ecclesiastical and lay, partly persons of high official rank, partly nominees of the Crown and the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was thought that an improved method of management, by granting leases for terms instead of for lives, with fines on renewal, would save at least £250,000 per annum, the same sum as that which Althorp had proposed to raise by taxation, and that the present holders of church dignities would not suffer. PART I M When the House went into Committee on March 13, Sir Robert Peel made an attack upon the bill. He said that he disbelieved in the financial soundness of the Peel's plan, as well as its justice. He also contended speech. that to remove the impost from those who never complained of it would gratify only a small number of Dissenters; that the proposal affected the independence and dignity of the bishops and the stability of the Church, and that if a surplus should be realised out of the property of the dignitaries of the Church, it ought to go to the augmentation of poor livings and the building of new churches, not to the relief of large landed proprietors, the chief payers of church rates, for this was the real principle of the measure. But why should church people be relieved of a burden which, for the most part, they were willing and proud to bear? Admit this precedent, and church rates would be followed by tithes, tithes by the Establishment altogether. This measure dissolved in principle the connexion between Church and State. The arguments used on the side of the Radicals and Dissenters were, briefly, equality and conscience. The practical grievance was small, but only those who felt it could estimate the sentimental grievance. All wish to disestablish the Church was disclaimed: but in the case of a privileged body like the Church of England each outwork of prescription broken down weakens the position. Howley. Some of the bishops had already met at Lambeth on March 9, and by a unanimous vote disapproved of the proposed measure, and Archbishop Howley spoke strongly Archbishop against it in the House of Lords. He represented that if it were necessary for church property to be touched at all, the sum diverted from the cathedral establishments ought to be applied to church extension. There were in England, he said, two millions of souls entirely destitute of spiritual instruction. The plan proposed would reduce church dignitaries to the position of mere annuitants, dependents on a board of Commissioners appointed by Government. Lord Melbourne, who though a theologian did not understand ecclesiastical objections to secular policy, was indignant, rated the Archbishop for 'undue haste and pre |